Posted by greywolf on July 25, 2007, at 3:38:32
In reply to Re:whoops, sorry (nm), posted by linkadge on July 21, 2007, at 19:46:21
I'm asking this question in total seriousness and with complete sincerity: if an opinion is expressed as a generalization that in no way demeans any person or class of people, and does not mock, belittle, or impugn any person's beliefs, and is not offered in an unfairly provocative, baiting, or frivolous manner, doesn't an administrative sanction directed at that statement cause greater harm than the statement itself? Frankly, I must be missing something that is obvious to everyone else.
This is my first day back to Babble in quite awhile, so I may be somewhat out of touch with contemporary standards, but my general "life sense" has always been that generalization is a valid conversational technique that normally allows or even prompts the audience to request specificity, and is a traditionally accepted element of dialogue that does not breach etiquette unless it is intended to demean, annoy, embarrass, or unjustifiably provoke a person or persons, or accomplishes similar adverse effects in an unintentional but obviously reckless manner.
Please forgive me if this sounds overly critical, but I think that sometimes the laudable focus on maintaining a civil discourse may diminish appreciation of the fact that, I believe, most of us who post here are adults with relatively similar abilities to distinguish between an innocent, essentially harmless imprecision and a generalization recklessly or intentionally thrust upon others to cause pain or discord.
Accordingly, I wonder if some thought can be given to evaluating whether too close scrutiny of facially civil speech sometimes results in the imposition of sanctions that cause more harm than the good intended by the rule.
Greywolf
poster:greywolf
thread:769140
URL: http://www.dr-bob.org/babble/admin/20070702/msgs/771833.html